Introduction
There are two main inspirations for even beginning to think
about reading Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (i.e. the translation of
Kant made by Norman Kemp Smith). The
first was Charles Taylor’s book Hegel, which covers some of Kant (that part related
to dialectics). The second was Adam
Roberts’ book The Thing Itself, which gives a fictional treatment of the
Critique (though not the Kemp Smith version specifically).
Taylor also mentions Kant in his newer book The Language
Animal, citing Kemp’s translation specifically.
This was the final straw that broke my resistance to committing to
reading Kant’s most important work, translated by his most important
English-language translator. Taylor
himself has always had a big influence on my writing, in terms of both style
and content. Taylor's take on Kant (and
his translator) matters a great deal to counter-mapping mainly for getting
dialectics right. The latter requires
philosophical sophistication, subtlety, and style.
I’m also writing a book on dialectics that explicitly avoids
both Hegel and Marx. And without those
two elephants in the room, and with the above intellectual supports in place, I
can begin to think through some of the implications of Kant for my book (Contrapuntal
Cartographies) that takes a dialectical approach to counter-mapping. The latter, being properly dialectical and
therefore political, will undertake a constant excavation of taken-for-granted
assumptions and bases for the production of powerful mappings of- and
in-the-world.
In a way, I'm looking for a critique of non-representational
theory 'from the beyond', from before Hegel, Bergson, and Jameson launched
their critiques. A large part of the
continuing momentum of NRT is carried forward in the discipline of geography
with theorists like Massey and Thrift at the leading edge. Massey's For Space deals much too casually with questions of representation/space,
and her main point that space is seen as fixed and dead is somewhat close to
that made by Soja in 1989 in Postmodern Geographies.
So, reading Kemp's Kant is a way of critiquing the critique,
but also of being right at its leading edge as well. For counter-mapping, or mapping against
hegemony, it is the hegemony of NRT that is ripe for critique and
re-mapping. I propose to take a
more-than-representational approach that brings in evolutionary theories and
memetics, and also a good dose of dialectics (including Kant). An occasional geographer will be useful in
this endeavour (e.g. Lorimer's 2005 intervention in Progress in Human
Geography), but more often it will be philosophers, anthropologists, even
biologists I might disagree with (thinking Dawkins and indeed Kant here) who
will 'come to the rescue'. And then I'll
fold it all back into counter-mapping and geographical thought.
Philosopher Rowlands, in New Science of the Mind, and
anthropologist Malafouris, in How Things Shape the Mind, take on questions of
representation in ways that geographers do not seem ready to do. The all-too-easy geographical (NRT) critique
remains mired in post-structuralism and even, at times, a kind of
happy-go-lucky Nietzschean nihilism.
What Rowlands and Malafouris do, in their separate ways, is to give
questions of representation the treatment they deserve by carefully sifting
through the various arguments for and against, accepting and rejecting aspects
that do or do not fit the facts and frameworks at hand, and making judgements
and conclusions based only upon whether the theories fit the facts, without
speculation. In short, there is too much
speculation in geography.
Kant is just the medicine for the speculative turn in
geography, and for naive thinking in general (but also unfortunately in
geography very specifically). His
thinking is idealistic, which will also rub many geographers trained in
'materialities' and 'spatialities' thinking the wrong way, going against an
ingrained framework that is only superficially hard-headed. The problem with much recent theorising in
geography is in fact its lack of grounding in useful questions, in useful
theory! It is, in fact, (as for example
in McCormack's 2017 lead paper in Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers) an a-theoretical approach to questions of geography, lacking
robust empirical and methodological grounding, and epitomised by the
post-phenomenological, affective, speculative, and circumstantial, all terms
currently favoured in the current paradigm of geographical thought.
To put it another way: Kant's just the antidote.
Contrapuntal Cartographies: Dialectics of Counter-Mapping
(McGill-Queen's University Press) is expected to be on shelves by 2019
References:
Kant, Immanuel.
1989. Immanuel Kant's Critique of
Pure Reason, trans. Norman Kemp Smith.
London: Macmillan Education.
Lorimer, Hayden.
2005. "Cultural geography:
the busyness of being `more-than-representational'" Progress in Human
Geography. 29(1): 83-94.
Malafouris, Lambros.
2013. How Things Shape the Mind:
A Theory of Material Engagement.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Massey, Doreen.
2005. For Space. London: Sage.
McCormack, Derek P.
2017. "The circumstances of
post-phenomenological life-worlds" Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers. 42(1): 2-13.
Roberts, Adam.
2015. The Thing Itself. London: Victor Gollancz.
Rowlands, Mark.
2010. The New Science of the
Mind: From Extended Mind to Embodied Phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Soja, Edward.
1989. Postmodern
Geographies. London and New York: Verso.
Taylor, Charles.
2016. The Language Animal: The
Full Shape of the Human Linguistic Capacity.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, Charles.
1975. Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment